ranking member, Mr. Miller, has a more extensive statement, but 

 I will submit my opening statement for the record to expedite this 

 hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



[Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson follows:] 



Statement of Hon. Tim Johnson, a U.S. Representative from South Dakota 



Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your calling today's hearing, which will give the Mem- 

 bers of the committees with jurisdiction over the Tongass National Forest the oppor- 

 tunity to examine the legislation that has been introduced by Congressman Young. 



I can understand the urgency and earnestness shown by the Chairman of the Re- 

 sources Committee as well as the rest of the Alaska delegation and Governor 

 Knowles regarding the future of the Ketchikan Pulp Company. KPC is an integral 

 part of the economy of southeastern Alaska, and the company is facing some impor- 

 tant decisions about how to modernize their plant and construct facilities to meet 

 environmental requirements. 



While I believe that an extension of the current contract is a legitimate issue for 

 discussion in regard to the future of the plant, I'm concerned about some of the 

 other modifications to the contract contained in H.R. 3659. I look forward to a full 

 airing of these issues today with the witnesses in attendance. 



Again, thank you for convening the hearing. I look forward to the testimony of 

 the various witnesses and to working with Chairman Young on this issue. 



STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE MILLER, A U.S. 

 REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA 



Mr. Miller. Mr. Chairman, let me just be somewhat brief as I 

 am late, but let us see whether or not there is some opportunity 

 in this hearing to sort of pull this issue and separate this issue 

 apart. 



Currently this issue is being presented on its own, and that may 

 be the situation, but I think that those who would suggest that it 

 is this legislation or KPC shuts down, that may not be doing justice 

 to the underlying issues. 



I also suggest that there needs to be some demonstration that in 

 fact that this bill represents the margin of difference on whether 

 or not that decision would or would not be made. And I don't know 

 that that is the case. 



Thirdly, I would also suggest that we should not underestimate — 

 some members were not here in the Congress, but I think clearly 

 the issue continues to resound. We should not underestimate the 

 feelings of this Congress who were overwhelmingly bipartisanly ex- 

 pressed time and again about uncertainties over these initial con- 

 tracts throughout the '80's and into the '90's when in fact the 

 House voted numerous times within excess of 300 votes to cancel 

 these contracts. 



We then arrived at a negotiated agreement, yourself and Senator 

 Stevens and myself and the other supporters in the House that 

 were supporters for the cancellation of those contracts during this 

 process, that substantially changed the manner and method of op- 

 eration on the Tongass Forest because there was a strong feeling 

 in the Congress and among many in Southeast Alaska that in fact 

 that the current practices were not sustainable. 



Louisiana Pacific, in my meetings with them last week, sug- 

 gested that they believe that those practices were sustainable and 

 they are sustainable today. That is a difference of opinion. 



Let us also remember what we did at that time. At that time 

 there was — if you will remember, there was a very large national 

 organization around the Tongass that was engaged in bringing this 



